Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Smart Driving Cars:
History and Evolution

(remove?)

of

Automated Vehicles
By

Alain L. Kornhauser
Professor, Operations...
Outline
• Automated Vehicles: 1939 -> Beyond 2018
– Defining “Automated Vehicles”
– The 1st 75 years: (1939 -> 2014)
• 193...
Scope of Surface Transportation

• Surface Transportation
Vehicle
+
Running Surface
(aka roadway, guideway, railway)
Scope of “Automated Vehicles”

Tesla Car Transporter

Rio Tinto Automated Truck
Rio Tinto Automated Train

Tampa Airport 1...
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
Level 0 (No automation)

SmartDri...
Automated Vehicles Operating in their own Exclusive Roadway
In the late 60s…
Some thought that: “The automation & computer...
APM
Automated People Movers
Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Long Headway (Large Vehicles)

Now exist in essentially...
PRT
Personal Rapid Transit
Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Short Headway (Small Vehicles)

Starting in the early 70...
PRT
Personal Raid Transit

Some early test- track success…
DFW AirTrans PRT
Was built and operational for many years
Morgantown 1975
Video1 Video2

Remains a critical mobility system today & Planning an expansion
Today…
We can Build and Operate them Safely
Morgantown 1975

Remains a critical
mobility system today &
planning an expans...
Masdar & Heathrow are Operational; Suncheon in testing

Masdar, Abu Dhabi

Heathrow PodCar

Suncheon, Korea
Far-term Opportunities for
Driverless, Short Headway, Exclusive Guideway

Transit
• Each Year: My students Design a NJ-wid...
County
Stations
Atlantic
191
Bergen
1,117
Burlington
597
Camden
482
Cape May
976
Cumberland
437
Essex
595
Gloucester
412
H...
Cost of Far-term Driverless Guideway Transit
• Each Year: students Design a NJ-wide PRT
network
• Objective: to effectivel...
But, Deployment has been
Excruciatingly Slow …
•Many years ago…The Executive Director of APTA
put his arm around me and sa...
What he was saying was…
• Final Region-wide system would be really great,
but…
• Any great Final System MUST evolve from s...
What about the
Personal Car
(Vehicles purchased by consumers for personal mobility)
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges
Focused on Creating New Roadways
To be used Exclusively by Automated Vehicles
• GM Fu...
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges
• Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (1971) (wikipedia)
– Chrysler & Bendix Corporation,...
Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges
• 1990s
– National Automated Highway System Research Program
(NAHSRP) (1994-97)
• Goa...
DARPA Challenges
2004

CMU “Red Team”

2005

StanfordRacing Team

DARPA Grand Challenge

2007

CMU “Tartan Team”

Created ...
2005

2007

Slide 49

Link to Presentation Not Easy Old House

2005

2007
Prospect Eleven & 2005 Competition
the making of a monster
2005 Grand Challenge
Objective
• Enrich the academic experience of the students

Constraints
• Very little budget

Guiding Principles
• Simplic...
Homemade
“Unlike the fancy “drive by wire” system employed by Stanford and VW, Princeton’s students built
a homemade set o...
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
It wasn’t so easy…
Pimp My Ride
(a video presentation)
Achievements in the
2005
Link to GPS Tracks
Participation in the 2007
Prospect12_TestRun
Today..
• Continuing to work on Prospect 12
• Vision remains our focus for depth
mapping, object recognition and
tracking
...
Fundamental Contribution of DARPA:
2004

CMU “Red Team”

2005

StanfordRacing Team

2007

CMU “Tartan Team”

Change the mi...
Automated Vehicles: Post-DARPA Challenges
(2007 -> today)

Driverless (Level 4); Non-Exclusive Roadway; Low Speed (< 25kph...
Where Are We with
Automated Cars/SmartDrivingCars?
Current State of Automated Cars
• Much of the Public Interest has been induced
by the
Self-Driving Car.

http://www.youtub...
SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges
(2010-today)

• VisLab.it (U. of Parma, Italy)
– Had assisted Oshkosh in DARPA Cha...
SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges
(2010-today)

• University Efforts:
– CMU + GM
– Stanford + VW
– Va Tech + Google?...
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Cras...
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
• Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars”
$475/yr are “Pass-through” Dollars
Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders”
$450...
What are the Current Challenges?
Google has “shown”: “We can build it!”
Don Draper (Mad Man) Has Done a Great Job
Convincing Us that We Love to Drive!
(Or,...
The Automobile’s
1st 125 Years
(1886-2011)
Benz patent 1886 1 Automobile
st

Benz Circa 2011

Delivered: Enormous Personal...
We Love the Freedom & Mobility
But…Continuous Vigilance is an unrealistic requirement for drivers
Txtng while driving is out of control…
TravelTainment Industry Wants Everyone’sAttention
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdf

“In 717 out of 723 crashes (...
Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2012
Response is Laudable

Kirkland, WA

But… Not Likely to be Effective
Crash Mitigation
(air bags, seat belts, crash worthiness, …)

Up to today: The Primary Purview of

Good News: Effective in...
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
Extending its vehicle safety standards from Crash Mitigation...
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What the Levels Deliver:

Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, C...
Where Are We Now?
Available in ShowRooms for Consumers

“Level 2- Combined Automation wit Constant Vigilance ”
What’s in the Showroom Today?
• A number of car companies have been offering active
Forward Collision Avoidance Systems fo...
Preliminary Results are Disappointing
But what has been sold so far doesn’t really work…
Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)
Systems
Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)
Systems

Model

Score:
City

Rating:
City

Score:
Rating:
Inter-Urban Inter-Urb...
However, It seems that some
manufacturers are finally ….

Getting Serious about Collision Avoidance
And Serious about usin...
Click images to view videos

S-Class WW Launch May ‘13

MB @ Frankfurt Auto Show Sept ‘13
MB Demo Sept ‘13

Intelligent Dr...
History and Development of
DISTRONIC:
Price reduction, intelligent packaging and availability cross-carline
MY 2000

Intro...
Near Term Opportunities

DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research

$475 are Pass-through Do...
Could “Pass-through” Finance
Mercedes Intelligent Drive??
(Available in ‘14 S-Class)

May well Deliver 2/3rds the safety o...
Expected Implications…
With Mercedes as the Market Leader offering “Level 2-” SmartDriving
Technology at an incremental pr...
Where might We End Up?
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What the Levels Deliver:
Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Co...
Initial Deployment…
• Needs to be Driverless
– With Excellent Pedestrian Recognition

• Doesn’t Need To Be…
– Fast
– Every...
What About……
What About……

Driverless

electric shuttle to be trialled in Singapore
(video of Luxembourg Demonstration)

Slide 84
What About……
Far-term Opportunities for
Driverless Transit Using “All” Existing Roads”
Slide 98

Slide 89
All Trips
Home
County

ATL
BER
BUC
BUR
CAM
CAP
CUM
ESS
GLO
HUD
HUN
MER
MID
MON
MOR
NOR
NYC
OCE
PAS
PHL
ROC
SAL
SOM
SOU
SUS...
“Pixelated” New Jersey
(“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2)
aTaxi “PRT” Concept
•

•
•

During peak demand aTaxis
operate between a...
Warren County
Population: 108,692
NJ Transit
Train Station
“Consumer-shed”
“Pixelated” New Jersey
(“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2)

aTaxi Concept – (PRT) Model
Personal Rapid Transit Model

aTaxi Concep...
New Jersey Summary Data
Item

Value

Area (mi2)

8,061

# of Pixels Generating at Least One O_Trip

21,643

Area of Pixels...
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership potential:
S...
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership potential:
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Fleet size (Instantaneous Repositioning)
State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi)
• Abel to serve essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day)
• Shared ridership allow...
Discussion!

Thank You
alaink@princeton.edu
www.SmartDrivingCar.com
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2

309

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
309
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2"

  1. 1. Smart Driving Cars: History and Evolution (remove?) of Automated Vehicles By Alain L. Kornhauser Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Princeton University Board Chair, Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) Presented at September 20, 2013
  2. 2. Outline • Automated Vehicles: 1939 -> Beyond 2018 – Defining “Automated Vehicles” – The 1st 75 years: (1939 -> 2014) • 1939 -> DARPA Challenges • DARPA Challenges -> Today – The next 75 years: (2014 -> 2089) • Today -> 2018 (next 5 years) • Beyond 2018 (next 70 years) • Questions/Discussion (aka “SmartDrivingCars”)
  3. 3. Scope of Surface Transportation • Surface Transportation Vehicle + Running Surface (aka roadway, guideway, railway)
  4. 4. Scope of “Automated Vehicles” Tesla Car Transporter Rio Tinto Automated Truck Rio Tinto Automated Train Tampa Airport 1st APM 1971 Automated Guided Vehicles Copenhagen Metro Elevator Mercedes Intelligent Drive Rivium 2006 -> Milton Keynes, UK Aichi, Japan, 2005 Expo CityMobil2 Heathrow PodCar
  5. 5. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Level 0 (No automation) SmartDrivingCars & Trucks The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
  6. 6. Automated Vehicles Operating in their own Exclusive Roadway In the late 60s… Some thought that: “The automation & computer technology that took us to the moon could now revolutionize mass transit and save our cities from the onslaught of the automobile” Donn Fichter “Individualized Automatic Transit and the City” 1964 PRT Westinghouse Skybus Late 60’s- APM
  7. 7. APM Automated People Movers Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Long Headway (Large Vehicles) Now exist in essentially every Major Airport and a few Major Activity Centers
  8. 8. PRT Personal Rapid Transit Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Short Headway (Small Vehicles) Starting in the early 70’s: U of Minnesota became the center of PRT research focused on delivering auto-like ubiquitous mobility throughout urban areas J. Edward Anderson William Garrard Alain Kornhauser • Since Demand very diffuse (Spatially and Temporally): – Many stations served by Many small vehicles • • Many stations – Each off-line with interconnected mainlines • • (rather than a few large vehicles). To minimize intermediate stops and transfers Many small vehicles – Require more sophisticated control systems, • both longitudinal and lateral.
  9. 9. PRT Personal Raid Transit Some early test- track success…
  10. 10. DFW AirTrans PRT Was built and operational for many years
  11. 11. Morgantown 1975 Video1 Video2 Remains a critical mobility system today & Planning an expansion
  12. 12. Today… We can Build and Operate them Safely Morgantown 1975 Remains a critical mobility system today & planning an expansion
  13. 13. Masdar & Heathrow are Operational; Suncheon in testing Masdar, Abu Dhabi Heathrow PodCar Suncheon, Korea
  14. 14. Far-term Opportunities for Driverless, Short Headway, Exclusive Guideway Transit • Each Year: My students Design a NJ-wide PRT network • Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips) • Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations ) • Typically: – ~10,000 stations – ~10,000 miles of guideway
  15. 15. County Stations Atlantic 191 Bergen 1,117 Burlington 597 Camden 482 Cape May 976 Cumberland 437 Essex 595 Gloucester 412 Hudson 467 Hunterdon 405 Mercer 413 Miles 526 878 488 355 497 1,009 295 435 122 483 403 County Stations Middlesex 444 Monmouth 335 Morris 858 Ocean 540 Passaic 1185 Salem 285 Somerset 568 Sussex 409 Union 577 Warren 484 Total 11,295 Miles 679 565 694 1,166 1,360 772 433 764 254 437 12,261
  16. 16. Cost of Far-term Driverless Guideway Transit • Each Year: students Design a NJ-wide PRT network • Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips) • Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations ) • Typically: – – – – – ~10,000 stations: @ $2.5M/station………….. ~$ 25B ~10,000 miles of guideway: @ $10M/mile… ~$ 100B ~750,000 PRT vehicles: @ $100K/vehicle … ~$ 75B Optimistic Capital Cost: …………………………. ~$ 200B NJ’s Personal Expenditures for Mobility: …… ~$ 25B/year
  17. 17. But, Deployment has been Excruciatingly Slow … •Many years ago…The Executive Director of APTA put his arm around me and said: – “Alain… • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is the ‘System of the Future’, • And….. – Always Will Be!!!
  18. 18. What he was saying was… • Final Region-wide system would be really great, but… • Any great Final System MUST evolve from some great (feasible) initial system and MUST be great (feasible) at every step along the way, otherwise… • It will always be “a system of the future”. • The dedicated grade-separated guideway infrastructure requirement of PRT may simply be too onerous and risky for it to be feasible let alone great at any point except at the ultimate nirvana which is unreachable. Yipes!
  19. 19. What about the Personal Car (Vehicles purchased by consumers for personal mobility)
  20. 20. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges Focused on Creating New Roadways To be used Exclusively by Automated Vehicles • GM Futurama @ 1939 World’s Fair • Zworykin & Flory @ RCA-Sarnoff in Princeton, Late 50s* * VK Zworykin & L Flory “Electronic Control of Motor Vehicles on Highways” Proc. 37th Annual Mtg Highway Research Board, 1958 Cruise Control (1958) 1945 Invented by Ralph Teetor 1958 Chrysler Imperial 1st intorduction GM first offered on the 1959 model year Cadillac.
  21. 21. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (1971) (wikipedia) – Chrysler & Bendix Corporation, introduced a computerized, threechannel, four-sensor all-wheel[6] ABS called "Sure Brake" for its 1971 Imperial. – Ford added an antilock braking system called "Sure-track" to the rear wheels of Lincoln Continentals as a standard option – General Motors :"Trackmaster" rear-wheel only ABS . An option on rear-wheel drive Cadillac models and the Oldsmobile Toronado. • “Wire Sniffing” Cars • Robert E Fenton @ OSU, Early 70s* * “A Headway Safety Policy for Automated Highway Operations” R.E. Fenton 1979
  22. 22. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • 1990s – National Automated Highway System Research Program (NAHSRP) (1994-97) • Goal to develop specifications for a fully automated highway system • Benefits: – #1. Roadway capacity (led to focus on platooning) – #2. Safety – #3…. Robust to Weather, Mobility, Energy, Land Use, Commercial efficiency, travel time • Focused on automated roadways serving only fully automated vehicles. • References – The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was; – TRB Special Report 253 “National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review” – Cheon, Sanghyun “An overview of Automated Highway Systems (AHS) and the Social and Institutional Challenges they Face” (Excellent critique, well worth reading) – Video Summary of NAHSRP (compare the tone to what Mercedes did in Frankfurt. We’ve come a very long way!) • Program Cancelled! No Feasible Initial Condition – No reason to build Automated Highway If there are no Automated Cars & visa versa.
  23. 23. DARPA Challenges 2004 CMU “Red Team” 2005 StanfordRacing Team DARPA Grand Challenge 2007 CMU “Tartan Team” Created in response to a Congressional and DoD mandate: a field test intended to accelerate R&D in autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield.
  24. 24. 2005 2007 Slide 49 Link to Presentation Not Easy Old House 2005 2007
  25. 25. Prospect Eleven & 2005 Competition
  26. 26. the making of a monster
  27. 27. 2005 Grand Challenge
  28. 28. Objective • Enrich the academic experience of the students Constraints • Very little budget Guiding Principles • Simplicity
  29. 29. Homemade “Unlike the fancy “drive by wire” system employed by Stanford and VW, Princeton’s students built a homemade set of gears to drive their pickup. I could see from the electronics textbook they were using that they were learning as they went.” http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=1489&a=161569&po=2,00.asp
  30. 30. Fall 2004
  31. 31. Fall 2005
  32. 32. It wasn’t so easy…
  33. 33. Pimp My Ride (a video presentation)
  34. 34. Achievements in the 2005
  35. 35. Link to GPS Tracks
  36. 36. Participation in the 2007
  37. 37. Prospect12_TestRun
  38. 38. Today.. • Continuing to work on Prospect 12 • Vision remains our focus for depth mapping, object recognition and tracking • Objective is to pass NJ Driver’s Test.
  39. 39. Fundamental Contribution of DARPA: 2004 CMU “Red Team” 2005 StanfordRacing Team 2007 CMU “Tartan Team” Change the mind set to: focus on the Individual Vehicle Make it “Autonomous”: Able to “Drive” without any outside help, behavior modification of conventional roadway users and, physical changes in existing roadways.
  40. 40. Automated Vehicles: Post-DARPA Challenges (2007 -> today) Driverless (Level 4); Non-Exclusive Roadway; Low Speed (< 25kph) • CityMobil (2008 -> 2012) – Low speed (< 25 kph), – Lidar pedestrian detection – Non-exclusive simple roadway – just lane markings – Includes pedestrians & low speed vehicles • La Rochelle (CyberCars/Cybus/INRIA • CityMobil2 (2012->…) • Slated for 5 city deployments + Singapore + ???
  41. 41. Where Are We with Automated Cars/SmartDrivingCars?
  42. 42. Current State of Automated Cars • Much of the Public Interest has been induced by the Self-Driving Car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE – It is not driverless… • Not yet – What did they do? • Adopted the DARPA “mind Set” ( & Sebastian Thrun from Stanford DARPA Team + others) • Bought “Standard Lexus” (w/ electronically controlled Brakes, Throttle & Steering (BTS)) • “Straped on” – Sensors: LIDAR’s “depth point cloud”, GPS, Radars & Cameras (on the expensive side) – Communications: to access 3D digital map data – Software & Computer: Converts Sensor Output into BTS Inputs • Developed a self-driving vehicle that can operate in the existing environment. • Stated Motivation: >90% of road traffic accidents involve human error. – So… remove the human from the loop. • Have Self-Driven over 500,000 miles on Existing Roads in Existing Traffic Conditions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
  43. 43. SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today) • VisLab.it (U. of Parma, Italy) – Had assisted Oshkosh in DARPA Challenges – Stereo vision + radars (Video has no sound)
  44. 44. SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today) • University Efforts: – CMU + GM – Stanford + VW – Va Tech + Google? – Oxford + Nissan – Parma + Fiat – Princeton (PAVE) –…
  45. 45. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research
  46. 46. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
  47. 47. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
  48. 48. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” $475/yr are “Pass-through” Dollars Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders” $450/yr Discount for Me $25/yr for Flo or the Gecko or ??? To enhance “Combined Ratio” Could Discount Finance: ??
  49. 49. What are the Current Challenges?
  50. 50. Google has “shown”: “We can build it!” Don Draper (Mad Man) Has Done a Great Job Convincing Us that We Love to Drive! (Or, do we?? Are we any good at it?) Safety Hasn’t Been Great at Selling Cars What is salient the “Value Proposition”? What will Consumers Buy?
  51. 51. The Automobile’s 1st 125 Years (1886-2011) Benz patent 1886 1 Automobile st Benz Circa 2011 Delivered: Enormous Personal Freedom & Mobility But…Safe Operation Requires Continuous Vigilance
  52. 52. We Love the Freedom & Mobility But…Continuous Vigilance is an unrealistic requirement for drivers
  53. 53. Txtng while driving is out of control…
  54. 54. TravelTainment Industry Wants Everyone’sAttention
  55. 55. http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdf “In 717 out of 723 crashes (99%), a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to the crash” In In 717 out of 723 accidents ((99%)
  56. 56. Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2012
  57. 57. Response is Laudable Kirkland, WA But… Not Likely to be Effective
  58. 58. Crash Mitigation (air bags, seat belts, crash worthiness, …) Up to today: The Primary Purview of Good News: Effective in reducing Deaths and Accident Severity Bad News: Ineffective in reducing Expected Accident Liability & Ineffective in reducing Insurance Rates
  59. 59. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Extending its vehicle safety standards from Crash Mitigation to Crash Avoidance with Aim at Full Self-Driving Automation Level 0 (No automation) The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
  60. 60. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience
  61. 61. Where Are We Now? Available in ShowRooms for Consumers “Level 2- Combined Automation wit Constant Vigilance ”
  62. 62. What’s in the Showroom Today? • A number of car companies have been offering active Forward Collision Avoidance Systems for several years – – – – – Volvo Acura Mercedes Subaru … http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/47/5/1
  63. 63. Preliminary Results are Disappointing
  64. 64. But what has been sold so far doesn’t really work…
  65. 65. Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems
  66. 66. Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems Model Score: City Rating: City Score: Rating: Inter-Urban Inter-Urban Mercedes-Benz E-Class 3.0 points Good (video) 2.7 points Good Volvo V40 2.1 points Good (video) 2.2 points Good Mitsubishi Outlander 2.1 points Good (video) 1.9 points Adequate Volvo XC60 1.9 points Adequate (video) --- --- Fiat 500L 1.8 points Adequate (video) --- --- Ford Focus 1.7 points Adequate (video) --- --- Volkswagen Golf --- --- 2.2 points Good (video) Honda Civic --- --- 0.44 points Marginal (video)
  67. 67. However, It seems that some manufacturers are finally …. Getting Serious about Collision Avoidance And Serious about using it sell cars And Serious about having it work
  68. 68. Click images to view videos S-Class WW Launch May ‘13 MB @ Frankfurt Auto Show Sept ‘13 MB Demo Sept ‘13 Intelligent Drive (active steering  ) Volvo Truck Emergency braking
  69. 69. History and Development of DISTRONIC: Price reduction, intelligent packaging and availability cross-carline MY 2000 Introduce DISTRONIC Adaptive Cruise Control In package for +$3,700 Only available on S/CL MY 2006 - Current MY 2014 - Future DISTRONIC PLUS Autonomous Braking Intervention In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist $2,950 Available Cross-Carline on almost every model Enhancements to Driver Asst. Package •Steering Assist •BAS with Cross-Traffic Assist •PRE-SAFE Brake with Pedestrian Detection •PRE-SAFE PLUS – protection during rear collisions In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist +$2,800 Only available on S/E
  70. 70. Near Term Opportunities DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research $475 are Pass-through Dollars
  71. 71. Could “Pass-through” Finance Mercedes Intelligent Drive?? (Available in ‘14 S-Class) May well Deliver 2/3rds the safety of Google Car $475 Pass-through becomes: $320 $20/yr for Flo or the Gecko $300/yr to Mercedes Therefore: I get Intelligent Drive for Free (thank you Google) !! Plus: •Prob. of my car killing me is reduced factor: 2/3*.81= 0.54 (half) •Prob. of my car injuring me is reduced factor: 2/3*.65= 0.44 •I “Save” my expected “deductible self-insurance”: $247/yr •I have more Comfort •I have more Convenience •I have “Anxiety” relief What a great Business Case! I’m a Buyer!
  72. 72. Expected Implications… With Mercedes as the Market Leader offering “Level 2-” SmartDriving Technology at an incremental price tag that can be absorbed by a “Price Leading” Insurance Company, should lead to: • Other automakers will be enticed to follow (race seems to have already started) • Viral adoption by the car buying public • “Moore’s Law type of price/performance improvement • Market-driven Transition to “Level 2” and “Level 3” at same or even lower price structure • Adoption and enhancement rates that are comparable to that enjoyed by airbags may be likely
  73. 73. Where might We End Up?
  74. 74. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience Primarily a Consumer Play Level 4 (Driverless Opportunity) : Mobility, Efficiency, Equity Revolutionizes “Mass Transit” by Greatly Extending the Trips that can be served @ “zero” cost of Labor. (That was always the biggest “value” of PRT; zero labor cost for even zero-occupant trips) Primarily a Fleet Play
  75. 75. Initial Deployment… • Needs to be Driverless – With Excellent Pedestrian Recognition • Doesn’t Need To Be… – Fast – Everywhere • Let’s start Slow and Narrow: – Like CityMobile2… – Say 10-15 mph • Along a Corridor, or • Throughout one of Florida’s Retirement Communities Slide 98
  76. 76. What About……
  77. 77. What About…… Driverless electric shuttle to be trialled in Singapore (video of Luxembourg Demonstration) Slide 84
  78. 78. What About……
  79. 79. Far-term Opportunities for Driverless Transit Using “All” Existing Roads”
  80. 80. Slide 98 Slide 89
  81. 81. All Trips Home County ATL BER BUC BUR CAM CAP CUM ESS GLO HUD HUN MER MID MON MOR NOR NYC OCE PAS PHL ROC SAL SOM SOU SUS UNI WAR WES Trips # 936,585 3,075,434 250,006 1,525,713 1,746,906 333,690 532,897 2,663,517 980,302 2,153,677 437,598 1,248,183 2,753,142 2,144,477 1,677,161 12,534 215,915 1,964,014 1,704,184 46,468 81,740 225,725 1,099,927 34,493 508,674 1,824,093 371,169 TripMiles AverageTM Miles Miles 27,723,931 40,006,145 9,725,080 37,274,682 27,523,679 11,026,874 18,766,986 29,307,439 23,790,798 18,580,585 13,044,440 22,410,297 47,579,551 50,862,651 33,746,360 900,434 4,131,764 63,174,466 22,641,201 1,367,405 2,163,311 8,239,593 21,799,647 2,468,016 16,572,792 21,860,031 13,012,489 29.6 13.0 38.9 24.4 15.8 33.0 35.2 11.0 24.3 8.6 29.8 18.0 17.3 23.7 20.1 71.8 19.1 32.2 13.3 29.4 26.5 36.5 19.8 71.6 32.6 12.0 35.1 16,304 477,950 29.3 Total 32,862,668 590,178,597 19.3 NJ_PersonTrip file • 9,054,849 records – One for each person in NJ_Resident file • Specifying 32,862,668 Daily Person Trips – Each characterized by a precise • Origination, Destination and Departure Time
  82. 82. “Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2) aTaxi “PRT” Concept • • • During peak demand aTaxis operate between aTaxiStands • Autonomous vehicles wait for walk-up customers • Located in “center” of each pixel (< ~ ¼ mile walk) • Departure is Delayed to facilitate ride-sharing Focus of Analysis: • what is the ride-share potential? Ridesharing delivers: • Congestion relief • Energy savings • Reduced costs/passenger • Environmental sustainability
  83. 83. Warren County Population: 108,692
  84. 84. NJ Transit Train Station “Consumer-shed”
  85. 85. “Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2) aTaxi Concept – (PRT) Model Personal Rapid Transit Model aTaxi Concept – SPT Model Smart Para Transit Transit Model Ref: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/Theses/2013/Brownell,%20Chris%20Final%20Thesis.pdf
  86. 86. New Jersey Summary Data Item Value Area (mi2) 8,061 # of Pixels Generating at Least One O_Trip 21,643 Area of Pixels (mi2) 5,411 % of Open Space 32.9% # of Pixels Generating 95% of O_Trips 9,519 # of Pixels Generating 50% of O_Trips 1,310 # of Intra-Pixel Trips 447,102 # of O_Walk Trips 1,943,803 # of All O_Trips 32,862,668 Avg. All O_TripLength (miles) # of O_aTaxi Trips 19.6 30,471,763 Avg. O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 20.7 Median O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 12.5 95% O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 38.0
  87. 87. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership potential: Slide 98
  88. 88. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership potential:
  89. 89. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Fleet size (Instantaneous Repositioning)
  90. 90. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Abel to serve essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership allows – Peak hour; peak direction: Av. vehicle occupancies to can reach ~ 3 p/v and eliminate much of the congestion – Essentially all congestion disappears with appropriate implications on the environment – Required fleet-size under 2M aTaxis (about half) • (3.71 registered automobiles in NJ (2009)
  91. 91. Discussion! Thank You alaink@princeton.edu www.SmartDrivingCar.com
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×